Question of the Day
Suggested by Shaker Esme: If you could have any animal, real or fictional, as a pet, what would it be?
I would want a gay dolphin, obviously.
Either that or a meerkat.
Blah Blah Yawn
President Barack Obama signaled to gay rights activists Wednesday that he's listening to their priorities by extending some benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. But he didn't give them even close to everything they want, bringing growing anger against the president to the surface.He wants to see that, huh? Well, good thing he's the fucking president then!
"We all have to acknowledge this is only one step," Obama said in the Oval Office, where he signed a memorandum that made incremental changes to benefits offered to the same-sex partners of gay federal employees.
...Obama has refused to take any concrete steps toward a repeal of a policy that bans gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, even though as a candidate he pledged to scrap the Clinton-era rules. He similarly has refused to step in and block the dismissal of gays and lesbians who face courts martial for disclosing their sexual orientation.
Obama said he wants to see the Defense of Marriage Act repealed and in its place a law that would give the partners of gay and lesbian federal employees health insurance and survivor benefits, among other things.
This passive posturing drives me absolutely berserk. It's the same shit Bush used to do, and it was bullshit then (when he had a Republican majority in Congress) and it's bullshit now (when Obama's got a Democratic majority in Congress). Dude's got a majority and a mandate and a campaign promise that gets stinkier by the day as it festers unfulfilled, and the best he's got is some random, undirected hope of seeing some specific, concrete change someday.
GO DOWN TO THE CAPITOL AND MAKE SOME NOISE UNTIL IT'S DONE!
Anyone who wants to be the leader of this country had better be ready to freaking lead! Yeesh.
The Trials and Travails of Transness: The Intersection Between Feminism and Transgender People
by Shaker Alexmac, a transgender woman studying at the University of Florida.
This series is meant to serve as both trans 101 for Shakers and to explore the relationship between trans women and feminism through Julia Serano's Whipping Girl. I proposed this post the Melissa in response to the "We Matter" thread, in which some commenters displayed an large ignorance of trans issues and used harmful tropes against trans people. While the commentors were not being malicious, many commenters suggested that they read Whipping Girl. This book deals with many of the harmful tropes that society uses to marginalize trans people, as well as the relationship between trans women and feminism. I wanted to offer my perspective on this book and offer some basic education on trans issues. My personal experience is as a trans woman and I cannot speak for the whole spectrum of trans people. This is also the focus of Julia Serano's book as she is a trans woman.
Let's start with basic terminology. Transgender people are people who have gender identity (how they see themselves) or gender expression which does not match their assigned (birth) gender. This includes drag performers, cross dressers, genderqueer people, and others. Julia Serano uses another name in addition to transgender in her book: gender-variant. It simply means people whose gender does not match up with the norm. The transgender community is the place for people who in some way transgress gender roles. Transexuals are people whose internal sex does not match their physical sex and take steps to live as their internal sex. This can involve hormone therapy, dressing as their identified gender and in some cases sexual reassignment surgery. On the other side are cisgendered and cissexual people whose gender identity and expression and internal sex matches their birth sex and gender. I will use the short hand forms cis and trans throughout this post to refer to cisgendered and transgendered people respectively.
How exactly do you treat trans people respectfully? The simplest way is to respect that person's gender identity and expression. Use the labels and pronouns that they identify with. When you meet a trans person, follow their gender presentation to determine what pronouns to use. If you can't figure it out, then just ask, and if you use the wrong pronouns then apologize. If you give a good faith effort, that is all it takes.
Trans people, and especially trans women, are subject to harmful tropes in the media and society. These tropes are described at questioningtransphobia. The major trope is that trans people are "really" a man/woman and not their preferred gender. This trope is often found in the following forms: 'trans men aren't really men, they are just confused butches' and 'trans women are just men in dresses.' This is often used to dehumanize trans people as in the Angie Zapata murder case where the defense used male pronouns to refer to her.
Another trope is that trans people receive patriarchal privilege. This a favorite of some 'radical feminists' in works such as Janice Raymond's The Transsexual Empire. This trope is mainly directed towards trans women, despite the fact that being trans means high levels of violence, poverty, and a mirky legal status. If that is privilege, then I don't want to see what oppressed looks like!
A third trope (again, often promoted by some feminists) is that trans people confirm the gender binary. Some social constructionists are really bothered by what they see as the suggestion there must something innate about gender, if people who have cross gender identity want to transition to their identified gender. My first response is: So what! I am much happier as a female than a male. My second response is that the ability of trans people to be accepted in their target gender after modifying their appearance and bodies show the extent that gender is socially constructed; it just isn't the whole picture.
The last trope I will address is the pathetic/deceptive or too feminine/not feminine enough dichotomy used against trans women. Trans women are put into a double bind. If they pass too well as a women then they are being "deceptive" and are trying to trick men into being with them. This idea is strongly reflected in the 'trans panic' defense where men attack trans women and try to justify it by the fact that they were 'deceived' by the trans woman. They can also be attacked by feminists for being 'ultra feminine' and supporting stereotypes of women. The other side is the pathetic 'trannie'—this trope is often used in 'trannie' jokes where women who look remotely masculine are accused of being 'trannies' (see Mann Coulter). This is really insulting because it feeds back into the idea that trans women aren't real women.
For actual trans women, it means that if we don't pass we are subject to ridicule, and this trope is best depicted in the 'trannie' sex worker stereotype who has facial hair and is the butt of jokes. I have personal experience with the plight of not passing. I was mocked and laughed at by two women in the middle of the street just a few weeks ago. The deceptive/pathetic dichotomy is just two sides of the same coin and goes back to the original trope that trans women are not actually women.
Julia Serano notes in her book that trans women are often sensationalized by society to a much greater extent then trans men, because our existence is a direct attack on traditional sexism. Society expects women to want to be men, because men are superior to women and trans men (in their eyes) confirm male superiority. Trans women, on the other hand, are men who want to become women (again in their eyes), which show that women have value and are men are no better than them. The idea that people born male would want to give up male privilege to become women breaks apart the whole system of patriarchy. This is not to diminish the prejudice that trans men and other transgender people face. All trans people face oppositional sexism—a concept which I will develop in the next post.
Art or Larceny?
Raleigh, NC, resident Joseph Carnevale was charged with misdemeanor larceny after allegedly destroying $360 worth of barrels after the artwork pictured above was traced back to him.
So, what say you, Shakers? Guerilla sculpture or misdemeanor offense? Good-natured hijinx or a danger to road workers? Public art or a distraction to drivers?
Against Men in Power
by Shaker John, a University of Chicago alumnus.
I graduated from the University of Chicago a year ago, and I've been working here since then. In the last five years, I've never been able to decide whether this university, as an institution and as a community, has given me more reasons to feel grateful or to feel ashamed. And in the last few weeks in particular—just as I've been preparing to leave Chicago for graduate school elsewhere; just as I've been wanting to feel sentimental about the University of Chicago, and thinking of all the people and conversations and objects and spaces I'll dearly miss—the scales have been tipping the other way, dramatically, toward shame.
Last month, amid strong community opposition, the university announced the upcoming closure of the Women's Health Center on 47th Street. Around the same time, our official student newspaper published a "satirical" column by a male student who used words like "tramp" and "skank" in order to tell female students that they ought to be more careful about what they wore around the campus. And the same paper, two months earlier, had published a "satirical" manifesto by Steve Saltarelli, proposing the creation of a student group called Men in Power (dedicated to giving "undergraduate males at the University of Chicago […] the skills they will need to become future leaders of the world," and to exploring "issues involved with reverse sexism").
After that, as many Shakers already know, Saltarelli apparently heard from a large number of interested students, and the group was formed in earnest. The decision as to whether they'll receive formal recognition and funding as a campus group may have been postponed, but, after a student meeting last week with one of the college deans, we expect the answer to be yes. In the meantime, Saltarelli has received national media attention, showing up on MSNBC, Good Morning America, and NPR. (The story has also been covered at other blogs, including Feministing and Jezebel.) Saltarelli and the other organizers of Men in Power have made clear their intention to inspire a national campus movement. And they've been endorsed, in the same student newspaper, by the National Coalition for Men.
I'm writing this post primarily to draw attention to a Facebook group created two weeks ago by some friends and myself, in opposition to Men in Power, and to encourage anyone who's on Facebook to join. I'll get to the details about that in a moment. First, I ought to emphasize that the opinions expressed here, though they were formed in large part through discussions with my friends over the last few weeks, are my own; I'm not writing on behalf of our group or trying to provide a collective sense of exactly what troubles us about Men in Power or what should be done about it. Second—as Melissa wrote in her initial post on this topic—I don't think I want "to expend an enormous amount of energy explaining everything that's problematic with this idea." (Nor could I.) Instead, I want to say something about why this situation makes me feel—as a white, cisgender, male University of Chicago alumnus—the emotions that I feel, which are, above all, anger and shame. Moreover, while I'm one of many people who believe there would be a place at the University of Chicago (or anywhere else) for a group in which questions relating to masculinity and male experience could be productively discussed, I want to indicate why I believe Men in Power is not, and can't be, such a group.
It's tempting to view this whole situation the way we're told it began—as a joke. In the NPR interview, Saltarelli is asked about the seriousness of his belief that we live in a culture in which men, as men, need aggressive advocacy; he replies that his initial "article itself is satirical, but, as with any satire—[like] Swift's 'Modest Proposal'—there's obviously ideas behind it." It isn't just that I'm bothered by this comparison as a student of literature (although there's that). It's also that the comparison brings to mind something like the following scenario: Agents of the British Empire contact Jonathan Swift in 1729 to let him know that they're intrigued and excited by his plan to solve the problem of Irish poverty by implementing the systematic consumption of the flesh of Irish children. Swift thanks the English agents for getting in touch, and, after some consideration, decides that he was sincere all along. Conveniently enough, he's already done much of the planning. Of course!
Satire whose actual, polemical, essentially non-satirical intent turns out to have been almost identical with its ironically stated satirical goal: I would say that Saltarelli has invented a new literary genre, except that I'm afraid he probably hasn't. Maybe this kind of discursive move happens all the time. Maybe it happens whenever cisgender men like me—or, dare I say it, whenever men in power—make satirical, ironic, unserious, serious jokes about the virtues of patriarchy, or about male supremacy. And that happens a lot.
Comments of that kind appear, and without even any pretense of sarcasm or irony, in the online space created by Men in Power. Recently, as the media coverage was getting underway, the MiP Facebook group was opened to the general public, and was almost immediately joined by hundreds of people from across the country, many of whom clearly understood the name "Men in Power" to imply just what it does imply—a group whose mission is the maintenance of (white, straight, cisgender) male dominance—and who appreciated the opportunity to express (white, straight, cisgender) male "grievances."
One commenter wrote: "I'm glad to see that there are enough people not afraid to be called sexist to stand up for being a man in today's world where white men are portrayed as villains for no reason." Another member created a discussion board with the title "Would you rather be raped or accused of rape?" The first post contained these sentences: "False accusation of rape is among the most troubling issues for men today. [...] Which is the worse scenario? Being a true victim or a false criminal?" My friends and I publicly brought some of these comments to the attention of the group officers, and that discussion board was eventually taken down. We were assured that such conversations didn't fit with the group's goals—and also, a little paradoxically, that "[p]eople have a wide range of opinions on these matters, some more valid than others, but these opinions can be heard." As I write, the member who started the discussion board I've mentioned is still in the group. As far as I know, no one has been removed.
Two weeks ago, we decided that there was an urgent need to create an inclusive online space countering this one. Our original name was "Men in Power Makes Us Ashamed." We soon became concerned, though, that this suggested a group mostly for cisgender males with a connection to the university (given that such persons arguably had the most obvious reasons to feel shame); and so the name was changed to "Against Men in Power." A day later it was changed a second time, to "Against 'Men in Power,'" following suggestions that we should clarify the group's opposition, not to all men who occupy positions of power, but to the new student group in particular.
I'm sure that making this change was the best thing to do; at the same time, though, I'd like to admit that I was fond of the ambiguity in the second name. I'd like to stress that I oppose Men in Power because their aim is to put men in power. Their stated purpose is explicitly and necessarily and undeniably antifeminist, in the sense that (as Melissa has noted) they seek to compensate for, to balance out, the progress that feminists and their allies have made in this country over the last half-century. This problem, I think, will not disappear if Men in Power change their name, continually clean up their Facebook page, or keep insisting (as they have done) that they aren't against women in power. Traces of this group's oppressive intentions, even if those intentions were ignorantly oppressive, are going to remain, no matter what.
I don't think you have to see their Facebook group, or to know about the comments that were posted there by people from outside the university community, to recognize immediately what's disturbing about Men in Power. You could just visit the official website that the students themselves have set up. The front page features a photograph of two professional-looking men shaking hands in, I guess, a courtroom—wherever it is, it's a room that stands for Power—next to a bright red box containing a quotation from Teddy Roosevelt. Actually, I'm going to reproduce these images here, because I have a suspicion that they may be erased from the site before long. As friends of mine have pointed out, there are several senses in which the key objective of Men in Power is erasure. In saying that they're concerned about a future absence of men in power, they erase patriarchy and cis/male privilege from the historical present. In saying that questions of contemporary masculinity aren't being discussed, or that it's "easy to overlook" them, they erase feminist, queer, and gender studies, and all the crucial, transformative work that these fields have been producing for decades. Men in Power erase. So here are Teddy Roosevelt and the two men:
The last point. They mean business. The same text currently appears on the main page of the Facebook group, as it has from the beginning. If these words are here as a joke, who's laughing? Whether it's a joke or not, what are they thinking? This quotation, if you'd care to know, comes from an address that Roosevelt delivered to U.S. Army recruits in 1898, and a fuller version runs as follows:Gentlemen: you have now reached the last point. If anyone of you doesn't mean business let him say so now. An hour from now will be too late to back out. Once in, you've got to see it through. You've got to perform without flinching whatever duty is assigned you, regardless of the difficulty or the danger attending it. [...] If it is the closest kind of fighting, [you must be] anxious for it. [...] Absolute obedience to every command is your first lesson. No matter what comes you mustn't squeal. Think it over—all of you. If any man wishes to withdraw he will be gladly excused, for others are ready to take his place.
Can it be denied that what's suggested here is an apocalyptic moment? Or that the implicit function of this quoted speech, in the context of the Men in Power website, is to call for some sort of uprising of American men, as an oppressed class, against their oppressors, who are women? I already thought I was uncomfortable whenever anyone talked about "the battle of the sexes." On a certain level, though, I'm glad I know that some men at my school actually regard gender politics as a battle like this, a desperate one, the last point of which has been reached. I say I'm glad to know; more than that, I'm repulsed, frightened, angry, and ashamed. And at this moment, as a man at the University of Chicago, I don't know what to do with my anger or my shame, other than to say that I oppose the establishment and the acceptance of Men in Power.
I'm still hoping the university can be convinced, at the very least, that there's no place here for a registered student organization with this name or these goals. The conversation about Men in Power is going to continue when the fall quarter begins in September, at which point some of the people who've been involved in it, myself included, will have left Chicago. In the meantime, my friends and I would like the opposition to be as strong and as widespread as possible. Whether or not you have any connections to this university—whether or not you share the specific reasons that I have to feel anger and to feel shame—please consider joining our group and telling your friends.
Quote of the Day
[Trigger warning.]
"Keep children safe from David Letterman's mouth! He will rape them with his mouth! He is a child abuser; he is a verbal pedophile! Wake up!"—One of the protestors outside David Letterman's studio last night, who demonstrates her outrage at rape jokes by minimizing the gravity of sexual assault, without a trace of irony.
And that would be exactly the sort of thing that makes people question the veracity of conservatives' claims that this is about more than cynical partisanship. The primary reason to object to a rape joke is because it normalizes rape and obscures its brutality, but, of course, equating a rape joke with the actual rape of a child does precisely the same thing.
If It's Wednesday, It Must Be Time to Investigate Torture
As quixote notes the weight of a sad anniversary, I bring my private efforts out in the open again -- in hopes that it will bolster your resolve to take action. Thank you, quixote, for bolstering my resolve.
Here's my weekly letter to congress-critters and President Obama (I've been writing them each week, but haven't posted them the past couple of weeks) -- feel free to cut and paste at will in sending your thoughts to your own reps.
Dear [Name]:
I am writing you again to request that you do everything within your power to investigate and bring to justice those who have violated US law and UN Conventions co-signed by the United States by perpetrating torture.
This week, the ACLU obtained newly released detainee statements which provide more evidence of torture programs -- and more evidence that they were as ineffective as they were inhumane.
As this evidence unfolds, the last pitiful refuge of excuse for this horrifying activity (performed in my name as a US citizen) -- that this was done for our protection in some kind of "ticking time bomb" situation -- falls apart completely.
It is not a surprise that these techniques are not effective -- the Pentagon was warned of this as early as 2002, and a host of experts in the field of interrogation techniques have clearly stated that the use of torture and inhumane/abusive techniques result in "false and misleading information".
In other words, the use of these techniques not only did not keep us safe -- it is most likely and logical that they have actually heightened the danger to our nation.
In order for us to be a nation governed by the rule of law, those who have broken the law must be brought to justice -- even if there are other pressing things to attend to such as health care, or the economy -- because the rule of law is the anchor of this nation.
What will it profit us if we get our economy fixed, or health care secured for our citizens, if we know that we live in a country where torture was performed, and is now condoned by our silence? What will it profit us if we move forward into some shining new day for our nation, if those who have broken the law and gotten away with it are in our midst?
I urge you, again, to investigate and seek prosecution for those who have broken the laws of this country and violated the UN Convention Against Torture to which this country is a signatory. I urge you to this action as a citizen, but most importantly, as a human being.
Thank you for your time in reading this. I welcome and await your response.
[PortlyDyke]
Action Item
Attn: Illinois Shakers
Shaker katebears emails urgently:
On May 31st, the Illinois General Assembly passed a budget that will drastically effect social services. All social services will suffer including services for the elderly, children, people experiencing homelessness, and those living with mental illnesses. The cuts will particularly hamper the work at rape crisis centers and domestic violence shelters.Please also make sure to pass this on to anyone you know in Illinois, and, as always, blog it!
Chicago currently has a mere 200 beds in domestic violence shelters all over the city. If these cuts are enacted, 1 shelter will have to close, making a great need even greater. Approximately 56,000 rape and domestic violence survivors will be without appropriate services should these cuts pass. Another 80,000 families will be without appropriate child care and early childhood education.
If we do nothing, the budget will pass – unconscionable cuts and all. I can only urge you to contact your legislators. Four representatives have been consistently meeting with the Governor about this crisis (see their contact information below). Tell them what these cuts will mean to you. All of us benefit from social services or have friends and family that do. This budget truly shapes all of our lives and hopefully with enough of a backlash we can change the destiny of the budget.
House Speaker Michael Madigan: (773) 581-8000 or mmadigan@ilga.gov
House Minority Leader Tom Cross: (815) 254-0000 or tom@tomcross.com
Senate President John Cullerton: (773) 883-0770 or john@senatorcullterton.com
Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno: (630) 243-0800 or cradogno@sbcglobal.net
Wednesday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, makers of Femisporin: The Feminist Salve Cure for Your MRA Ills since 2004.
Recommended Reading:
Boehlert: I'm pretty sure this is why Juan Williams isn't allowed to associate himself with NPR when he appears on The O'Reilly Factor.
Lori: In Namibia and Beyond, Forced Sterilization is a Human Rights Violation
Ta-Nehisi: Nathan Bedford Forrest Has Beautiful Eyes
Lauredhel: On Up-Front Warnings in Certain Kinds of Posts
BeckySharper: Gordon Ramsay, Hypocritical Nightmare
Resistance: 'Flores por Brisenia'
Ann: Brownback: The next Kansas governor?
Leave your links in comments...
In Which Another Dunderheaded Dodobrain Fails Utterly to Realize Feminism is His Friend, Not His Enemy
Shaker CLD forwarded me the link to this dismal reminder of why USA Today ain't fit to line a birdcage. "Decline of the American Male," by Men's Health editor David Zincenko, begins:
Like most Americans, I look at the news about the economy, the need for health care reform and our growing national debt, and I worry about how we're going to escape the recession.I don't know whether I'm laughing harder at men being an "endangered species" or at "the Great He-cession." Clearly, American men are in grave danger of extinction, as evidenced by our male president, his male vice-president, and his male-dominated cabinet, our 84% male Congress, our 89% male Supreme Court, a majority male American workforce, men continuing to make more than their female counterparts for the same job, the Apatovian dudebro backlash across the pop culture landscape, and the fact that USA Today wouldn't publish a piece as equivalently heavy on feminist rhetoric, even if it were well-sourced and factually accurate, to the anti-feminist rhetoric in this heap of fetid rubbish if the author paid them.
But as someone who has spent his career working to save an endangered species men I have another worry on my mind: What are we going to do about the Great He-cession?
As you've no doubt already guessed, Big Z immediately launches into the argument that the current recession is disproportionately affecting men, based on the figure that men have suffered greater full-time job losses in the last year—which conveniently ignores the huge numbers of women who were first out when job losses began years ago, and no longer even show up in unemployment numbers, because they've given up job hunting and long ago exhausted their unemployment benefits.
Naturally, he's also ignored, as have most others making the "men are faring worse" claim, that only in some fantasy world where having a job at all is a better predictor of security and quality of life than what kind of job one actually has does the assertion make sense. That women may soon be employed in greater numbers does not mean that men are faring worse, given that women are much more likely to be underemployed and underpaid; men who are laid off will have made more and ergo had more opportunity to save than their female counterparts before losing their jobs. Anytime massive layoffs strike, people who have had less opportunity to stockpile savings are most negatively affected.
And, of course, going from jobless to topless isn't exactly a Utopia for most women—but let's talk more about how terrible things are for the menz.
A 2007 government survey found that of the 36.8 million American adults who lack health insurance, 56% are men.Solution: Support feminism, which has been advocating for universal healthcare for decades.
And let's remember our injured vets: 98% of the Iraq wounded are men, and for many of them, their war-related health problems will continue for a lifetime.Solution: Support feminism, a community in which you will hear such realities of war being discussed before the war—and where you will also find support for female soldiers being allowed to fight on the front lines and share the most dangerous duties.
Psychological issues again, often left untreated because of a lack of employment and insurance affect men in much greater numbers, as well. Almost 70% of homeless adults are men, and the suicide rate for young men is five times that of young women.Solution: Support feminism, which seeks to subvert the cultural narratives about masculinity that discourage men from seeking care and asking for help, that associate need with weakness.
One argument for funding so many health service organizations targeted to those citizens who already enjoy the best health, the most insurance, the longest lifespan, and the safest and most plentiful jobs that would be women is that it's payback time.Another argument would be that the feminist women who have petitioned and fought for the existence of those organization and their funding: A) Know that women actually don't enjoy the best health, the most insurance, and the greatest access to jobs and associated health benefits; and: B) Don't subscribe to cultural disincentives that challenge their genderhood, prioritizing health above conformity.
The Obama administration showed great eagerness in addressing the problems of women soon after it took office, with the establishment of the White House Council on Women and Girls. We applaud that move, and we now look for equal time for the males of the species.I'm really tempted to suggest that Big Z blow it out his ass and leave it at that, but instead I'll take just a moment to point out what ought to be painfully obvious: It isn't that American men (which, naturally, in Zincenko's parlance means "straight, white, cisgender, able-bodied American men") lack for opportunity, or access, or privilege, or anything else. In fact, in just about every way imaginable, American men still have the advantage out of the starting gate. What American men in the main are lacking is a way to define themselves that is neither oppressor nor oppressed.
…In other words, let's think about men. It's about time we caught a break, and a he-covery would be just the thing.
Masculinity has defined itself exclusively in contradistinction to the feminine for so long that a serious challenge to the idea of inherent male superiority has left millions of American men floundering—and the best answer most of them have found for the question "What is my role if not a keeper of women?" is "I am a victim of oppression by women." Femininity has become the center-pin around which masculinity pivots—on one side there is dominion; on the other side, subjugation.
What American men are lacking is a vision of equality.
Women had to change the rules, because we were told "You can't," because we had seemingly unnavigable barriers put in our way by people who didn't want us to succeed, because, if we had played by The Rules (as dictated by The Patriarchy), we never would have gotten where are—because The Rules were designed so that we fail. For many of us, the odds have been against us our whole lives; everything we've ever done has been in defiance of the distinct likelihood—and expectation—that we would settle for less than we wanted.
But we wanted more, and so we changed the rules—primarily by raising the bar.
The men who resent that the bar has been raised, their unearned privilege undermined and replaced with an expectation to achieve to the same level as women who hadn't their head start, can now do naught but whine about victimhood. They haven't yet realized that they are not victims of women, who only want the equality that's been denied them, but victims of a patriarchal culture that has spoiled men with the promise of success without effort, and robbed them of the will to expect more of themselves.
What American men are lacking are great expectations for themselves and of themselves.
I resent giving cookies, but I don't mind giving clues: A good start would be putting personhood above manhood, maybe for the first time.
Shaker Gourmet: Meatloaf!
Hey Shakers!
Due to this lingering respiratory illness that's left me with the energy of a slug and some family issues which are necessitating big changes--including another cross country move coming up shortly--I'm going on a hiatus from posting. Liss has very, very graciously said she will keep up with Shaker Gourmet while I'm trying to get my sluggy energy to pack up a house and move again (and school is out now, so we have all the typical summer stuff to pack around too and all). I absolutely adore Shakesville (& Shaker Gourmet!), so I shall be back after everything settles down.
This week's recipe comes from Shaker Siobhan:
If you'd like to participate in Shaker Gourmet, you can still email recipe submissions to: shakergourmet (at) gmail.comMeatloaf
2 cups finely chopped onions
1 TBSP minced garlic
1 celery rib, chopped fine
1 carrot chopped fine (very fine, I throw it and the celery into the
food processor)
1/2 cup finely chopped scallion
2 TBSP unsalted butter
2 tsp salt
1 1/2 tsp freshly ground black pepper
2 tsp Worcestershire sauce
1/3 cup ketchup
2 TBSP chopped chipotles in adobo (more = spicier)
1 1/2 lbs ground beef, 93% lean
3/4 lb ground pork
1 cup cooked rice
1 cup (approx) unseasoned breadcrumbs
2 lg eggs, beaten lightly
1/3 cup parsley, minced
Glaze:
1/3 cup ketchup
2 TBSP brown sugar
1 TBSP adobo sauce (more = spicier)
Preheat oven to 350. In a large heavy skillet, cook onion garlic, celery, carrot and scallion in butter over medium heat, stirring, 5 mins. Cover and cook, stirring occasionally, until carrot is tender. Stir in salt and pepper, Worcestershire sauce, 1/3 cup ketchup and chipotles and cook, stirring, for about a minute. Remove from heat
and allow to cool until handleable.
In a lg bowl, combine veggie mix, meat, eggs & parsley. Add bread crumbs until it comes together well. Spread into loaf pan and cook until meat thermometer registers 165 (about an hour). After 30 minutes, add the glaze on top.
Please include your Shaker name and a link to your blog, if you have one!
Blog Pal Note
I've gotten some inquiries about what's going on with the Washington Monthly, whose website is down at the moment. I've just been told that they were hacked overnight, and expect to have the site back up later today.
My sympathies to my pal Steve Benen and all the other folks over at WM.
Another Reason to Love Sidney Crosby
by Shaker Icca, a Pittsburgh native and fan.
Those of you who don't know, the Penguins won the Stanley Cup last Friday, and Pittsburgh's been celebrating full-force. And it's little surprise that a local radio station—the one that plays Pens games on the air—got an interview with the 21-year-old team captain, Sidney Crosby.
The radio host can be rather misogynistic and I dreaded him having Crosby on, afraid that he'd pull the captain into sexist chat and thus ruin my good feelings about the win. But I wasn't going to let that keep me from listening to Crosby—and was I ever glad that I did!
The majority of the interview (podcast) is sports talk, but in the last segment, maybe the last two minutes of the interview, host Mark Madden starts asking more chatty questions. It's no surprise that the first one goes straight for the misogyny, but Crosby doesn't take the bait and answers with grace:
Madden: Now if you take the Stanley Cup to a bar, or a beach, or a restaurant—Sid, I gotta figure the chicks come running. Is that the case so far?I love my team.
Crosby: Ah, it's incredible—it's incredible the attention that, that, the cup gets—it's—it's amazing. I mean, I've never seen anything like that. Whether you're a hockey fan or not, it just sticks out. It's just—people want to see it. Um, like you said, I'm sure girls like to see it, just like anyone else...
War on Terror Training Domestic Terrorists
Salon has just published a big piece about white supremacists infiltrating the US military care of the increasingly lax regulations on extremism in the ranks, now that the military can't afford to be the slightest bit picky about who it takes. The article underlines one of the most worrisome aspects of white supremacists' military involvement and hints at a very ugly possible future in America when a bunch of highly-trained extremists comes home: "White supremacists may be doing more than avoiding expulsion. They may be using their military status to help build the white right."
This information is not new. In July 2006, the New York Times ran a significant piece on the exact same issue, after the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, warned that recruiting shortfalls had resulted in "large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists" being accepted into the military. Three years ago, there was already news of Aryan Nations graffiti in Baghdad and evidence that white supremacist leaders were encouraging their members to enlist "to get training for a race war." Three years ago, the SPLC uncovered that a former Special Forces officer was serving as a "military unit coordinator" for the National Alliance, who were urging "skinheads to join the Army and insist on being assigned to light infantry units."
Light infantry is your branch of choice because the coming race war and the ethnic cleansing to follow will be very much an infantryman's war. It will be house-to-house, neighborhood-by-neighborhood until your town or city is cleared and the alien races are driven into the countryside where they can be hunted down and "cleansed." As a professional soldier, my goal is to fill the ranks of the United States Army with skinheads. As street brawlers, you will be useless in the coming race war. As trained infantrymen, you will join the ranks of the Aryan warrior brotherhood.Which makes the final passage in the Salon article all the more gobsmacking:
The U.S. Senate Committee on the Armed Forces has long been considered one of Congress' most powerful groups. It governs legislation affecting the Pentagon, defense budget, military strategies and operations. Today it is led by the influential Sens. Carl Levin and John McCain. An investigation by the committee into how white supremacists permeate the military in plain violation of U.S. law could result in substantive changes. I contacted the committee but staffers would not agree to be interviewed. Instead, a spokesperson responded that white supremacy in the military has never arisen as a concern. In an e-mail, the spokesperson said, "The Committee doesn't have any information that would indicate this is a particular problem."Amazing.
Only in America could we have a black president presiding over two racist wars being used by white supremacists to train for a domestic race war, all of which started with a terrorist attack that included among its devastation the complete erasure from the national memory of another terrorist attack committed by an extremist military veteran.
Maude help us all.
[H/T to Shakers Anil and Reedme.]
Insult to Injury
This sounds like a great headline: U.S. to Extend Its Job Benefits to Gay Partners. But hold your applause:
President Obama will sign a presidential memorandum on Wednesday to extend benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, administration officials said Tuesday evening, but he will stop short of pledging full health insurance coverage.So, what exactly are these extended benefits going to be, if not health insurance? I guess we'll find out soon enough. But hold your applause:
Mr. Obama, in an Oval Office announcement, is expected to offer details about which benefits will be provided.
Pam: It gets so much worse. This partner benefit plan is simply an administrative memo - it expires when Obama leaves office! LOLOLOL. FAIL-O-RAMA.So, basically, this entire maneuver boils down to: Obama wants gay rights advocates to stop yelling at them, so he's offering them a cookie. Except it's not a real cookie—it's just a cardboard cutout with paste masquerading as icing.
Thanks a fuckload, Obama.
Question of the Day
We haven't done this one in awhile... What's your favorite video game?
This is an easy one for me: Oddworld. Hands-down my favorite of all time. It's also one of Spudsy's favorite games, too, and both of us were made inordinately happy by discovering our shared ardor.
It's all about Abe.
How can you not love that face?
Quote of the Day
"I deeply regret and am very sorry for my actions."—Republican Senator John Ensign (NV), who "has acknowledged an extramarital affair with a campaign staffer in a statement released by his office."
Ensign has been "an ardent opponent of gay marriage" and supported "an amendment to the Constitution that would have defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman" saying it was necessary to protect "the institution of marriage."
